BHAGWANDAS PARSHOTTAMDAS PATEL Vs. RAJENDRAKUMAR MAFATBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara, in M.A.C.P no.385 of 1990 dated 15-11-1995.. This appeal is by the claimants for enhancement of the award.

(2.) Shortly stated, accident took place on 29-12-1989. It is the case of the appellant-claimant that on that day while the appellant-claimant and his two brothers were crossing the road for proceeding to Welcome Group Hotel, R.C.Dutt Road, Vadodara, and when they reached border of the road towards Hotel at 7.00 p.m., at that time, the opponent no.1 came driving his scooter bearing registration no.GJN 2662 from the Railway Station side in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed with the appellant-claimant, with the result, the claimant sustained bodily injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the Lady Pillar Hospital, Vadodara, and treated as an indoor patient for six days. The claimant sustained tibia fibula fracture on his left leg. He also sustained fracture on his wrist and was kept in plaster. The claimant had also taken treatment of Dr.Prabodh, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Ahmedabad. Due to the accident, the claimant was unable to sit cross-legged, he could not walk or drive his car. At the time of discharge, he was carrying permanent partial disability, his working capacity has reduced. After the accident, he had to employ attendant to look after him. According to the claimant, prior to the accident, he was earning Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per month from partnerships in various business firms. On these grounds the appellant-claimant filed M.A.C.P no.385 of 1990 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

(3.) Before the Tribunal.,the opponent no.1 driver and the opponent no.3 Insurance Company had filed written objections resisting the claim petition and contended that the accident was a result of the sole negligence of the claimant. The opponent no.3 in fact denied the case of the claimant in toto. However, the opponent no.1 had not stepped into the witness box . The opponent no.2-the owner of the vehicle had not chosen to appear.